Appeal No. 1997-2298
Application 08/329,113
inconsistent with Appellant’s use of the term in the
specification. Appellant’s specification at page 3 describes
a looped antenna lying in a single x,z plane. This plane,
however, is defined by a dimension extending in the
perpendicular y direction, i.e. a dimension determined by the
thickness of the antenna material used. Hings’ antenna
conductors also are described as lying in a plane (col. 3,
lines 51-53 and col. 12, line 31), the dimensions of which are
determined by the diameter of the coil turns. Absent any
limitations in the claims directed to specific dimensions, or
at least relative axial dimensions, of the recited plane, we
remain of the opinion that the Examiner, in giving the
broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim language, was
correct in concluding that Hings’ conductors describe an
umbrella-shaped loop “lying substantially in a plane.” The
Examiner is required to give examined claims their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification,
and “limitations appearing in the specification are not to be
read into the claims.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225
USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 828 (1985).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007